Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist

TMS320 wrote:

On 18/05/2020 08:44, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:

After all what motivates non-cyclists to post here?

You mean they must be looking for confrontation, to some degree or
other - it's true I wouldn't expect them to shy away from it.

From what I can gather, though, this group has a history of a kind
of 'controversy of posters' dating back quite a large number of
years.

Once upon a time there was this group and uk.transport. On this group
people discussed cycling comparatively unmolested.

If the level of variance stimulates interest and contribution from
within the group then can't this even be something of a useful thing,
in a perverse sort of way, as in, no pain - no gain? Like, out of
arduous exchanges sometimes real insights emerge which otherwise we
may not have gained.

There isn't much on television and being here passes the time. But when
a group becomes so small, there is little that's actually new.

Yes, I can see how that's a limiting factor.

When not taking essential exercise I am sitting at the PC because I am
writing code for electronics gadgets so it is difficult not to spend too
much time on newsgroups at the same time. (All hobby, not fraudulent
work from home)

Although certainly nobody would want any of the stuff that even
approaches harassment, as has recently been touched upon in the group
here.

Certainly nobody wants personal issues taken outside.

In my very short experience here, and on usenet really, posters can
range from those who are straight forward to communicate with, to
those who I find are somewhat more challenging to various degrees.

'Challenging' has two forms though. The person's online personality or
points of argument. There is often a dearth of the latter.

Good point. If you are here primarily for the cycling interest, it is
the points of argument that you are basically interested in.

JNugent wrote:

On 18/05/2020 11:19, Kelly wrote:
'Nasty people' is hardly a strong enough term for them. Bringing what
should remain in usenet out into real life in that manner is an
absolutely despicable thing to do.

In reality, though, that simply didn't happen. It was a pure wind-up.

All that happened was that the poster Judith said she was going to do
it. But she didn't.

In those days, I used a valid email address in my usenet details (no
longer!) and Judith emailed to tell me that no-one had been down to
London and that no-one had been to the BP AGM. I had no reason to
disbelieve that. Travelling to London - from where I understood Judith
to live - would have been an expensive trip, and in any case, there
would have been no question of gaining access to the AGM of a large
public company without some prooof of entitlement to be there. IIRC,
Jusith did make some reference to buying (literally) a few BP shares to
be able to get in (as part of the wind-up), but again, I don't believe
that it ever happened.

In those days, I had quite a few emails from various people in ukrc,
some of them quite surprising. I wish I still had that email account
(but I don't).

Clearly, there were (and in at least one case, still is) posters who had
and have an exaggerated impression of their own importance and
relevance. Openly and repeatedly boasting of being paid overtime for
other duties whilst posting to usenet was probably not a wise thing to
do. It was clearly rankling with some. I never believed it. There always
seemed something odd about it.

Intriguing...

On 22:27 17 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 17/05/2020 19:25, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/2020 11:48, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:

Cyclists in this group have taken the side of the father because the
girl was riding a bike but what if she was on a scooter or
skateboard and fell over after being unable to slow down for a
couple on the footpath? Would they still think she and her father
was in the right?

It could be that many cyclists feel they face regular prejudice based
upon negative stereotyping and misunderstanding, and consequently
they do tend to see the best in other cyclists - I know I do.

It could be that it's more often that the non-cyclists don't take a
dispassionate view.

That's not a bad way of putting, actually. I'd go further, the more I
think about it, it's a good way of putting it - and less
confrontational than calling non-cyclists bias or prejudice. A
dispassionate view would be fair to cyclists.

I wasn't deliberately trying to be non-confrontational with the word.
After all what motivates non-cyclists to post here?

Pamela thinks she/he/it is all sweetness and light. Yet right from the
start she/he/it has been attacking the child's father. The only
criticism about the man with the dog was the swearing. According to
Pamela, that's taking sides.

The alleged swearing is based on a claim by Simon Mason and you know what a
loose grip he has on facts. Please tell me where in the following video the
man is swearing and what he says.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/WPuOHvYGBC8

On 11:19 18 May 2020, Kelly said:

Simon Mason wrote:

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 8:44:11 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Although certainly nobody would want any of the stuff
that even approaches harassment, as has recently been touched upon in
the group here.

One of the troll here, "Judith" once wrote to my employers in an attempt
to get me dismissed. When "she" failed, "she" contacted London HR and a
group of four of them even turned up at our work's AGM in London to try
and get me the sack. Nasty people.

'Nasty people' is hardly a strong enough term for them. Bringing what
should remain in usenet out into real life in that manner is an
absolutely despicable thing to do.

In the olden days you could say anything you liked on Usenet but as social
media abuses in places like Facebook abounded then people took action.
They showed what was said in posts would have consequences.

I'm not aware of Judith's actions or what triggered them because they seem
to be before my time.

Perhaps she felt Simon's provocations about his real life (for which I saw
he is notorious) were one step too many. When I first came across Simon
he was posting all sorts of comments and photos about his life with a view
to upsetting readers. Largely about jobs he was applying for, his career
and insurance payouts if I recall correctly.

Judith probably responded in exactly the way Simon was taunting her to do
although I don't know her side of the story. From what little Simon has
written above, her actions don't seem to have been illegal.

By contrast, if you go to the radio ham group, members still posting there
these days did take their differences to court and one was fined. See:

https://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/n...emailed-false-
accusation-about-teacher-to-school-after-online-spat/

On 12:17 18 May 2020, JNugent said:

On 18/05/2020 11:19, Kelly wrote:

Simon Mason wrote:

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 8:44:11 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Although certainly nobody would want any of the stuff
that even approaches harassment, as has recently been touched upon in
the group here.

One of the troll here, "Judith" once wrote to my employers in an
attempt to get me dismissed. When "she" failed, "she" contacted London
HR and a group of four of them even turned up at our work's AGM in
London to try and get me the sack. Nasty people.

'Nasty people' is hardly a strong enough term for them. Bringing what
should remain in usenet out into real life in that manner is an
absolutely despicable thing to do.

In reality, though, that simply didn't happen. It was a pure wind-up.

All that happened was that the poster Judith said she was going to do
it. But she didn't.

In those days, I used a valid email address in my usenet details (no
longer!) and Judith emailed to tell me that no-one had been down to
London and that no-one had been to the BP AGM. I had no reason to
disbelieve that. Travelling to London - from where I understood Judith
to live - would have been an expensive trip, and in any case, there
would have been no question of gaining access to the AGM of a large
public company without some prooof of entitlement to be there. IIRC,
Jusith did make some reference to buying (literally) a few BP shares to
be able to get in (as part of the wind-up), but again, I don't believe
that it ever happened.

In those days, I had quite a few emails from various people in ukrc,
some of them quite surprising. I wish I still had that email account
(but I don't).

Clearly, there were (and in at least one case, still is) posters who had
and have an exaggerated impression of their own importance and
relevance. Openly and repeatedly boasting of being paid overtime for
other duties whilst posting to usenet was probably not a wise thing to
do. It was clearly rankling with some. I never believed it. There always
seemed something odd about it.

Thanks for posting that background.

It seems Simon once again inflated an event into something unreal. I see
this even in his current postings, where likes to make untrue claims about
incidents in news articles he posts.

Call me old fashioned but perhaps I expect too much in the way of honesty
from Usenet posts.

On 12:17 18 May 2020, Kelly said:

TMS320 wrote:

On 18/05/2020 08:44, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote:

After all what motivates non-cyclists to post here?

You mean they must be looking for confrontation, to some degree or
other - it's true I wouldn't expect them to shy away from it.

From what I can gather, though, this group has a history of a kind
of 'controversy of posters' dating back quite a large number of years.

Once upon a time there was this group and uk.transport. On this group
people discussed cycling comparatively unmolested.

If the level of variance stimulates interest and contribution from
within the group then can't this even be something of a useful thing,
in a perverse sort of way, as in, no pain - no gain? Like, out of
arduous exchanges sometimes real insights emerge which otherwise we
may not have gained.

There isn't much on television and being here passes the time. But when
a group becomes so small, there is little that's actually new.

Yes, I can see how that's a limiting factor.

When not taking essential exercise I am sitting at the PC because I am
writing code for electronics gadgets so it is difficult not to spend too
much time on newsgroups at the same time. (All hobby, not fraudulent
work from home)

Although certainly nobody would want any of the stuff that even
approaches harassment, as has recently been touched upon in the group
here.

Certainly nobody wants personal issues taken outside.

In my very short experience here, and on usenet really, posters can
range from those who are straight forward to communicate with, to
those who I find are somewhat more challenging to various degrees.

'Challenging' has two forms though. The person's online personality or
points of argument. There is often a dearth of the latter.

Good point. If you are here primarily for the cycling interest, it is
the points of argument that you are basically interested in.

Years (decades?) ago I used to be a keen cyclist. At least, within my own
limitations. Back in those sweet old days I never encountered the
militant negative attitude found here towards motorists.

There are some interesting psychological commentaries on rule breaking by
cyclists and how such behaviour deeply upsets some motorists who expect
other road users to follow the same rules as they do. It's intriguing.
Illness prevents me cycling or driving, so I read such material from a
neutral point of view.

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 1:35:00 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

It seems Simon once again inflated an event into something unreal.

A guy called Mark James from London HR rang me on a company internal phone line and read out a litany of false claims that "Judith" had made about me at the AGM in 2011. From me using a company phone to make multiple votes in the BBC SPOTY for Mark Cavendish, to taking lab reagents to analyse the Ammonia content of the water in my garden pond. Crazy times.

On 19:26 18 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 1:35:00 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

It seems Simon once again inflated an event into something unreal.

A guy called Mark James from London HR rang me on a company internal
phone line and read out a litany of false claims that "Judith" had made
about me at the AGM in 2011. From me using a company phone to make
multiple votes in the BBC SPOTY for Mark Cavendish, to taking lab
reagents to analyse the Ammonia content of the water in my garden pond.
Crazy times.

It would be utterly astonishing if a sharegolder at the AGM of a major
multinational company spoke on behalf of a motion which went into petty
misdemeanours like misusing a phone.

Presumably it was minuted. Do you know which motion was being discussed when
all this was mentioned? Do you have the minutes for BP's 2011 AGM?

Here is another version: http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158982990900

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 9:19:34 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 19:26 18 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 1:35:00 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

It seems Simon once again inflated an event into something unreal.

A guy called Mark James from London HR rang me on a company internal
phone line and read out a litany of false claims that "Judith" had made
about me at the AGM in 2011. From me using a company phone to make
multiple votes in the BBC SPOTY for Mark Cavendish, to taking lab
reagents to analyse the Ammonia content of the water in my garden pond.
Crazy times.

It would be utterly astonishing if a sharegolder at the AGM of a major
multinational company spoke on behalf of a motion which went into petty
misdemeanours like misusing a phone.

Presumably it was minuted. Do you know which motion was being discussed when
all this was mentioned? Do you have the minutes for BP's 2011 AGM?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...E/aKQB0ajwE08J

On 18/05/2020 21:55, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 9:19:34 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 19:26 18 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Monday, May 18, 2020 at 1:35:00 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

It seems Simon once again inflated an event into something unreal.

A guy called Mark James from London HR rang me on a company internal
phone line and read out a litany of false claims that "Judith" had made
about me at the AGM in 2011. From me using a company phone to make
multiple votes in the BBC SPOTY for Mark Cavendish, to taking lab
reagents to analyse the Ammonia content of the water in my garden pond.
Crazy times.

It would be utterly astonishing if a sharegolder at the AGM of a major
multinational company spoke on behalf of a motion which went into petty
misdemeanours like misusing a phone.

Presumably it was minuted. Do you know which motion was being discussed when
all this was mentioned? Do you have the minutes for BP's 2011 AGM?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...E/aKQB0ajwE08J

Does British Petroleum publish the minutes of their shareholders' AGMs
on Usenet?

Who knew?